Pro Hunt / Anti Hunt Debate (split from Toffbusters)

I am sure you do Dok'..its maybe just i don't trust you .... we have not built up that much have we ? see i find you hostile... sorry to drag claire'pphoenix into this but they may share some of your opinions but they have the decency or just the sense i guess either to ignore me or just just be pleasant (they have a soft centre ) ... you on the other hand can't even wish me Merry Christmas ffs . Or find a lot of what you say mmmmm well before i say something that you blow out of proportion.. i will just say .. i don't think we should use up any more of each others time . the benefits are tiny .. lets make it our unofficial new years resolutions ..

How can you claim to say that they are not involved in certain activities then ?.. I am sure the ALF find it much cheaper and its better publicity just to let people use their title and only dismiss anybodys actions when it does not suit them ... clever that...http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/WhatisALF.htm see they even say it themselves .. sorry its just another link Dok' i cant find myself some nutter that would tell me about it . Anyway chill out Dok' why are you getting mad... i said if you did not wish to share anything with me thats fine.. instead of blasting off like a rocket every time you reply....

I have no problem believing that animals are re homed .. its the methods and how this is achieved .. with no wiff of being involved in any ilegal activity.. read my posts Dok' thats what i found a bit strange. you turn what could be a civilsed communication into fucking ranting nonsense were nothing is achieved at all .

Well Dok' i did once go up to a few people that supported the respect party .. they were canvassing in my town centre.. i chatted away and they seemed alright.. the fact is though they won't and can't go into great detail about everything.. The internet for all its faults has a wider selection of views opinions facts etc etc .. see i don't even know if you would vote for respect .. most people that do just say so.. and are not as gaurded.. this i find a problem with you and maybe why we never get past anything more than ranting and raving.

 

Yeah, and I find you to be rude, provocative and insulting. But that doesn't mean that I believe you're a liar. Jumping to conclusions like that about someone simply based on the fact that you don't hit it off is a bit childish, don't you think?

How many times to I have to explain this? There is no 'them'. 'They' are not an organisation. 'They' do not have a centralised leadership. 'They' are just a load of individuals. Thinking of the ALF as a cohesive organisation would make as much sense as referring to people who post on the forums collectively as 'hip forumers'.

That's because there is no them, you fucking moron. Who exactly do you think 'lets' or 'doesn't let' people 'use their title' exactly?!? THEY DON'T EXIST AS AN ORGANISATION. What the fuck does it take to get this into your head?

It's really very simple. Do you seriously believe people who care so much about animals that they're prepared to risk imprisonment on a regular basis are then about to hand them over to any old random twat? Given that these people are fanatical enough to break the law because of their beliefs, don't you think it's reasonable to believe that they might also be fanatical enough to ensure that the liberated animals are subsequently looked after?

Matthew, you refuse to believe me, imply that I'm a liar and don't know what I'm talking about, and then expect me to be civilised? Practice what you fucking preach.

What the fuck has that got to do with anything? I'm not at all guarded. Of course I wouldn't vote for respect. You live on a different planet.

 

my sources come from a general knowledge and understanding of hunters from a hunters prospective, i am a hunter , i have beagles that i use to hunt rabbits, and yes my numbers are rounded figures because i am estimating by the number of individuals that I know who hunt with dogs, and their attitude towards the quarry they chase......for the most part, hound hunters arenn't at all worried about wehter or not they kill, its all about the chase....and you seem to think that these animals run for 10 or 20 miles....maybe 5 miles tops...all in 1 continuous circle, before loosing the dogs...hence the term sly as a fox.......while training by dogs evcery now and then they will chase a fox.....the chase usually is no more than a large circle race that ends where it starts, withthe fox escaping inot a hole or rocks......but from what i gather, most city people think that these aniumals are chewed to death by dogsa......simply not true.....a fox may every once in a while et killed by a dog.....but is it not good population control.....or should we let the fox population run out of control and eat up all the hares and rabbits, and klill the farmers sheep....theres more to consider here than just the fox....theres a whole ecosystem at line here, and i thikn you people need to wake up to the facts that a small sacrifice is needed to ensure the health of the whole.....

 

Sleeping pill anyone?

 

Well we agree on that much at least. And you'd be a good place to start

 

I think a crowbar would be more effective

 

huh? why does he have to explain it to me? I´m well aware of what the ALF is and isn´t I have better things to do such as thinking, discussing AND acting!

Anyway am off for a meal now with Smartie in Barcelona! So as you were Matthew

*toddles off to her life*

Love Clairexxx

 

I also don't believe this. As Matthew says even native species would struggle to survive, but as for a species like the Mink...take the example of the 8,000 that were released at a farm in North Staffordshire in 1998. Which although not native, actually thrived...by killing smaller native species and eating everything, including eggs. This was an act of environmental terrorism....not liberation.

 

Unfortunately you can't explain anything, simply because you don't know what you're talking about. The ALF only has 'founding members' in the same sense that you could refer to the first few posters on the hip forums as 'founding members'. Those who post afterwards are not bound by any charter of membership and are not tied to any organised body. It's the same with the ALF. They're not an organisation. Whatever you'd like to think.

Innterestingly, the 'information' that you then go on to quote is uncreditted. Hardly surprising since you dug it up off www.hounds.org.uk ..... a website "dedicated to the continuation of hunting with hounds in the UK". Hmmm. I'm sure they know exactly what they're talking about. Honestly Matthew, that's a bit pathetic, don't you think? As I've said to you before, you might want to try getting out into the real world rather than trying to back your 'arguments' up by quoting random shite off pro-hunting websites. I could quote from the back of a beer mat, but it wouldn't make for a solid argument.

Ignorant and ill-informed rubbish that you've dug up on some pro-hunt web site hardly qualifies as 'information'.

You made a valid point? I must've missed it.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand, but I'd vote Green in any election that used proportional representation, and in any other election I'd vote tactically against the Tories.... be that Labour or Lib Dem.

 

I can hardly think of any other instances of people operating under the banner of the ALF where people have released animals into the wild. It happens, but it's extremely rare. You get idiots in any movement. Highlighting such examples doesn't prove anything other than.... guess what?... there are idiots in any movement. The vast amount of work carried out by various animal liberationists in Britain has involved re-homing rescued animals.

 

How funny. I post a thread about Toffbusters which has primarily been organised by anarchists and a bunch of idiots start ranting bollocks about the ALF taken from spurious sites with little or no credibility whatsoever.

Anarchists predominantley have little or nothing to do with the animal rights organisations whatsoever let alone the ALF.

The ALF does NOT exist as an organisation. So stop talking cock as you don't have a clue what you're wittering about.


Doc...just shoot the fuckers and be done with it!

 

The founding farthers still operate and have passed the torch onto other people (as well).... they don't care about all the wannabees (as such) ... The core group operate and do all the things that you purport they don't ?? These people are organised .. fuck all the the ripples that eminate from them .The core people have lots of 'useful idiots' to shove the blame and the attention away from most of their activities (even though i am sure the support most of their activities)..Have you never heard of the few groups i mentioned these were the groups i wished for you say if you had heard of ? You have managed not to mention them once ?


‘Angry Brigade’
Band of Mercy
Ronnie Lee, a trainee solicitor, and his friend Cliff Goodman
Niel Hansen

and the groups that i actualy originaly asked you about

The Justice Department and the Hunt Retribution Squad are just two names adopted by ALF activists when attacking hunt supporters. The use of such titles is a convenient way of allowing leading ALF figures like its press officer, Robin Webb, to stand slightly apart from criminal acts and claim respectability. It may also be thought a way of convincing the public that are far more people involved in animal rights terrorism than is actually the case. No matter how many different names are used, the number of extreme activists in the UK is probably less than a thousand - although they succeed in causing millions of pounds of damage each year.


I mentioned more than once .. about the semantics if we could call them a organisations , this was not my point realy... Lets forget about what the FBI refer to them as .. forget i even mentioned 'organisation' http://www.hedweb.com/alffaq.htm whatever i think ? (you say Dok') well i would still class them as a organisation however hard you try and tell me other wise ... lets agree to disagree .. i am not 'pro hunt' i would probably support 50-60% of what the 'members' do.

Not realy.. i saw the paricular groups and peoples names in lots of diffrent places..it just was the shortest article.. All i was proving is that ALF do and have done something that you claim they have not. The founders not underlings that just have jumped on the band wagon...or are not conforming to the 'guidlines'... ignorant and ill informed ? i don't think so ...

Yeah you tend to miss lots of things Dok'

Just trying to learn a bit about were your comeing from Dok' thats all...

Sorry claire , just got the impression that the ALF have nothing to do with 'sabing' or any Anti hunt activity...this is only thing concerning the ALF i have been trying to clear up with Dok' .. but again he makes a simple question something , very hard .

I don't believe the ALF have nothing to do with fox hunting.

I don't believe the vast majority of animals released have good and decent homes .

I do believe that some do find good homes, but not in the vast majority of cases .

http://www.animalrights.net/discussion/fullThread$msgNum=72871&page=3

'its not been about the animals for some time'

I would probably agree with that ?.

'the ends justify the means'

I don't agree with releasing animals realy..so no i don't agree with that.

 

'Founding fathers'?!? You really don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about, do you?

Matthew, you haven't got a clue. All you're doing is reading 'information' on the internet in the mistaken belief that it gives you an understanding of the subject at hand, without any real-life experience of the people or situations in question.

The so-called 'groups' to which you refer probably constitute less people than post regularly in this forum. As such, they are so far on the fringe of animal rights activity in this country that they are effectively meaningless in any debate on such an issue.

And again, the 'information' that you quote is simply copy 'n' pasted from a pro-hunting web site. Hardly objective, eh? All it does is underline your ignorance of the issues.

Fine. You disagree with the facts while I agree with them.

Absolutely ignorant and ill informed. There aren't any 'guidelines' because there is no organisation. Until you accept that fact, you're just talking out of your arse. Everything that you supposedly 'know' about the subject is simply second hand propaganda that you've managed to google. That hardly constitutes a well-informed opinion.

Yeah yeah. Saving up for that telescopic scope. I'll get you next time

Well what you believe is in direct contradiction to the facts. You're welcome to believe what you like, but ignoring reality just makes you an idiot.

Look at it this way, matthew. I care about animals because I'm a caring person, not because it fits some extremist ideology. I support the actions of those who liberate animals becaus I know it helps animals - not because I'm blindly following a political agenda. If there was the slightest chance that rescued animals were being re-homed with less than caring people, I simply wouldn't support such action. Your refusal to accept this simple fact is an act of ignorance. All you know about the subject comes from what you've read on line. The mature position would be, at the very least, to simply adopt a stance of neutrality, since you clearly haven't had any direct experience of the matters at hand.

As for fox hunting - the ALF are not (I repeat) an organisation. Are there some people who carry out actions and call themselves the ALF who also go out sabbing or conducting other direct action? Of course they are. However, to conclude that 'the ALF' is actively organising against fox hunting would be like saying that the Hip Forums were organising against fox hunting if a couple of regular posters went sabbing.

Your misconceptions about the ALF are fairly common but still essentially ignorant. The ALF was never 'founded' as an organisation. The term 'ALF' has always simply been a convenient label to be picked up and used by anyone who feels like it at the time. Accept it or deny it, it's still a fact.

 

yeah that was a bit ott. i admit ...

I am not just wildly posting crap (whatever you may think)... if i was to sit in a pub with you guys ... i would not hear anything more than what you believe ...This is why i don't generaly ask people in the real world , you very rarely get people who accept the flaws in what they think or at least see that possibly they may be wrong . All i have ever tried to do is ask you questions..with what you may call prevocative questions ?. Yeah i have thrown in information from the net and asked you to help ... i admit it may have looked like i was saying 'look , i know better' ... but i did read the info from lots of diffrent places and came across the same names ? and was trying to just connect the dots , as you seemed to have the pen .. i was hoping you could (or others) could help me join them up (dots ? pens ? probably the worst analogy of all time ).

'The slightest chance' ?. I do apreciate decent people liberate and re home animals .I think idiots liberate animals as well ... l.. Idiots give liberated animals to decent people ... as decent people will give liberated animals to decent people. The problem i have (and i hope you can see) is that idiots give idiots liberated animals. This must go on all the time ? . As this is a negative , must greatly undermine any 'good' work that is done by decent people. As liberating animals is completly illegal so completly unregulated ...... the more people believe 'the end justifies the means' (however you/me wish to interprete that) ... more idiots will be liberating animals , their by (i would sadly think) giving more idiots the chance to re home them ?.

I personaly think working within the law, working with organisations that actualy are regulated , surely must be better. Saying that you support such actions (liberating/re homing animals) because i would assume your ignoring the 'idiots' and what they do is, living in a weird kinda world ?. I don't mean to be rude , but that must just make you sleep better at night ?.

Holding a stance of neutrality ? yeah would love to Dok' but i am caught in caring a lot , but not caring as much or as intensely as you guys ?.. I think i have explained somewere about why i can't see how the vast benefits given to human kind imho outweighs were you guys are comeing from.. I don't ever think i could alter my mind on that . This is why i am actualy posting within threads like this ... i would love to see it from your point of view and finaly have a change of mind.

No, i would say that people who used to go out with people like yourself . Were disheartened and were at heart more 'extreme' . In a battle of supremacy and i would hope a attempt to give hunt sabing a friendly image ... such extreme people will never be given to much limelight , because you all get clumped in together. I would hope you don't find even the small band of 'extreme' protesters any help to your 'cause' at all.. or even tolerate them , because they get press , wich i would think unfortunatly/fortunatly this gives anti hunt people the exposure they need. One thing thinking about it, you say sabbing was never about ending fox hunting , but looking after foxes , surely the end of fox hunting would achieve this ?.

This is why i was posting names and titles of 'groups' as you know i was hoping you could tell me who they were and what they were about... your gonna say find out for yourself (in the real world).. so if i asked you personaly face to face , you would happily tell me what i wanted to know , and to the best of your ability explain things ??.... well Dok i think you would still just say what your saing in this forum to be honest.. plus i would think most people who shared you point of view would not wish to discuss things in detail either ? or do you think all that i have asked and given is a complete pile of steaming crap ? . And nothing i have asked deserves a explanation (objectively).

If i was to ask a preacher in my town centre , who was telling me jesus was my saviour and that he died for my sins etc etc . At this time of year i.e chrismas (his birth) . i should thank jesus with all my heart ... The fact that christmas has nothing much to do with jesus and their are many other points of view would not gain me anything in chatting with such a preacher ... Unfortunatly sorry (again) but this is the way i think you are .. i do apreciate your time though.

 

No need. Just rude.



BLUEGILL:

I agree with you that there's is an eco-system involved. Certainly with respect to your comment regarding hares and rabbits and the hunting of those creatures. If they were totally destroyed, then what would hawks and buzzards (etc) eat?
Fine.
But it's in my view a misapplication of that premise to attribute such ideas of ecosystem erosion to a sport that involves what are (although as I feel you infer) - highly trained animals, into some form of natural balance. This is not a case of natural evolution, this is a case of human ingenuity with the specific application of hunt and death.
It's not my place to assert things, with the assumption that you should agree. I just feel that your volition that hunting is right, is as equally if only in a ethical regard perhaps, met by the idea that killing for sport is wrong.
But as a final note, can I say that it is a pleasure to have a proper debate and conversation that involves ideas rather than confrontation and compared to some people a fair exchange of views without abuse.

 

As you say.
But that wasn't anything to do with the ALF. And as for getting idiots in any movement, indeed, as noted. But that's surely more a case of a lack of organisation and collective movement. Those who have an evident disregard for the 'voice' of a petition should be assumed to be on the fringe. What it proves is that violence, as stated in earlier rangles, is an evident misapplication of the force of an argument towards public scorn and eventual rebutal.

I.E, dok............it makes a mockery of the cause.

 

You're wrong. You wouldn't hear what I believe - you'd hear what I know. Opinions and facts are two different things.

Then you're speaking to the wrong people. I always accept the possibility that I may be wrong when debating opinions. However, when discussing facts, I make sure I'm well enough informed to know I'm not wrong.

See, that's very reasonable. If you could post like that more of the time I'm sure we could avoid confrontation. The problem with the information that you're posting is that it's plain wrong, and is mostly culled from extremely biased sources who aren't even in a position to gather information on the subject.

Absolutely. Fortunately though, such idiots are a tiny minority. And this is another problem. Using such idiots as a meaningful example of the way animal libbers behave is akin to citing hooligans as an example of your average football fan. It's ironic that as someone who is so anti-media you should be so willing to accept the media image of the fanatical animal libber.

Again, you're talking about an insignificant minority here. Weighed against the vast body of good work that's carried out by the majority, I don't see why this even merits discussion.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I would point out though that for people to be actively involved in animal liberation, they really need to care a lot about animals. They're risking imprisonment every time they act. If they care that much about animals, they're hardly likely to then hand them over to uncaring homes.

It's not 'better' or 'worse'. It's another way of working. It's very easy to ignore the suffering that goes on behind closed doors and work within the law to change things,. Because we're not confronted daily by the sight of animals being tortured, we're able to put it to the back of our minds and lose any sense of urgency. For those who act against the law, those images are with them constantly. Forgetting isn't an option. I commend that fact that they feel compelled to act. If you could have a conversation with an animal, could you look it in the eyes and tell it "look, sorry that you're being tortured, but rescuing you now would be illegal, so I'm afraid you'll have to wait until change can be achieved legally. Oh wait..... you'll be dead by then. Never mind, at least your suffering will have been in a good cause"?

Again, I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. As I've said, the idiots are a tiny minority. Are you suggesting we should never support any movement that contains a minority of idiots? Because that would rule out supporting anything.

If you wanna discuss whether animal experimentation actually works, then that's a whole thread in itself. Might be an interesting debate. Where do you stand on animals being used in experiments on non-medical chemicals?

You'd have to be more specific. Do I think violent attacks against hunt supporters are a good idea? No. Do I shed any tears if someone vandalises a hunt landrover? Not really. Life's seldom black and white, so it's not so easy to draw clear lines delineating right and wrong.

Of course. But my point was that sabbing was never meant as a protest movement. It's direct action in the field intended to save foxes.

I wasn't suggesting you talked to me. I was suggesting you go out into the real world and meet a range of people who have real-life experience in the areas that interest you. You'd learn far more than you would reading pro-hunt websites.

The difference being that the preacher simply believes.... he doesn't have any reference to facts, so he can't offer you anything more than an opinion,

And again, this is what makes you fucking ignorant. Because you disagree with someone, you assume that they're ill-informed and advocate a point of view simply from a position of entrenched extremism. That's patronising, arrogant and factually incorrect. I hold my points of view through reference to facts. I'm objective. If there's one thing I've never been guilty of, it's holding to an opinion simply through prejudice or extremism. The fact that you don't realise that illustrates how little you understand me.

 

Oh how shocking. Was I rude?!? Forgive me for being a little impolite in the face of someone advocating the murder of animals. Clearly manners are more important than behaving with humanity.

If you can drag his cock out of your throat for long enough to consider the facts, you might rememeber that it was you who first resorted to personal abuse in this thread. 'Myopia' ring any bells? Maybe you should polish your own halo a little before climbing up on that moral high gound.

 

Not really. You get idiots in any movement, organised or otherwise. In fact, since idiots frequently lack initiative, you could reasonably argue that the lack of organisation is an active disincentive to their involvement.

Unfortunately that's disproved by the weight of history. You'll notice, for example, how the IRA's campaign has finally been successful in bringing the government to the negotiating table and Sinn Fein into mainstream politics.

Of course, there's a much wider debate to be had hear. For a start, violence against people and property should be treated separately. There's then a whole conversation about whether the use of violence is justified. And then you finally get on to whether it's actually productive. Whatever side of any of these arguments you come down on, it's ignorant and foolish to assume that a clear case can be made for any position. The whole subject is extremely complex and subject to personal opinion as much as fact. Condemning anyone on either side of the debate is therefore a little simplistic to say the least.